|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 17 2016 11:00 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 10:49 zlefin wrote:On September 17 2016 10:28 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 17 2016 10:04 zlefin wrote:On September 17 2016 10:00 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 17 2016 09:56 zlefin wrote:
Trump seems more about bringing disunity to the USA than unity. but you can want him to do whatever you like, as he surely ain't gonna deliver. That's not what I see (I am someone who has seen every one of his speeches on the internet). Obviously I'm going to be biased, but I see a powerful message of unity in his speeches, what you see in the little snippets in media, obviously will be taken out of context, much like Hillary calling Trump supporters deplorable. In my eyes, it's a complete shame of Hillary for being a useless politician that can't talk about anything good about herself, 95-99% of her campaign has become shitting on Trump... Like Obama said, don't we have something more meaningful to talk about? just because he talks about unity sometimes (which is good) doesn't mean he's actually producing it. He, like many politicians, says a whole lot of stuff, so people can pick and choose what they like. He says unity stuff sometime, but some very different stuff at other times. On the whole I'd say the effect is more one of division than unity. I've definitely got the impression of a decrease in unity as a result of him. It is dumb of Hillary to try shitting on trump, insulting people isn't what hillary is good; she's a policy wonk, sure it's terribly boring, but it's still a better play than what she's doing. Yes, you're right, especially about saying the whole lot of stuff so people can choose what they like. To me, as someone white who is surrounded by a lot of Chinese, Korean, and Japanese people.. Trump seems like a fairly easy person to get behind. That's because these people assimilate fairly well, and are all about what you are able to do. There aren't these special kinds of bonds, they value you as a person based on what you can do. To me, I'd think a lot of Mexicans are the same as well. There was a couple polls that showed that Trump is 35% with English speaking hispanics and only 10% with the bilingual/spanish speaking ones. I don't have it in front of me, so pardon me if the numbers are a tad off, but I think this is a fairly good indication that the people who get into the groove of American culture can get to like Trump. 35% isn't so bad given that 15%~ are undecided/voting for other people... And not only that, they have so much pressure from other hispanics to not like him, personally I think people can get behind liking Trump quite easily. There aren't very many Black people where I live, so I can't really comment on how well he'd be able to get along with Black people, it is a bit of a different culture. I think the biggest thing is if you keep telling yourself that Trump is some awful person, you'll always nitpick bad things, and you'll never like him. I think Trump has said and done enough terrible things that it's easy to find him awful and unfit for the presidency. No need to pick nits when there are much larger things to pick at  (indicator of comedy and snideness) Yes, that's true, but I would weigh it with a lot of good that he's said too, and that's what gave me better insight on his as a person. You don't get a good representation of his persona only by looking at all the news where he's getting shat on. Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 10:33 Nyxisto wrote:On September 17 2016 10:24 xDaunt wrote:On September 17 2016 10:18 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2016 10:04 radscorpion9 wrote:On September 17 2016 09:47 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 17 2016 09:38 Doodsmack wrote:
The conservative posters argued so fervently the position that "hey look Hillary did something bad here, and you won't admit it, so let's talk about that", but the fact remains that the severity of Trump's involvement in birtherism was clearly much greater. And by much greater, I mean much much much greater. I think it's clear that a status-quo "rational" candidate is looked at very differently than a candidate that is all about tearing it down. Naturally Hillary is held to a higher standard, and it was very smart of Trump to play his cards in such a way to be in this position. I don't want Trump for being some genius policy freak, I want him to stop the social shift in SJW (like this girl in my city yesterday), political correctness, and bring unity to the USA... As well as a person that I can agree with from a philosophy and values standpoint, regardless of what short-comings he has as a person. Hence I could care less about what Trump says. So yes, he's higher risk, but I'm not afraid of what a President (not a monarch) can do in 4 years compared to my dislike of the current movement in society. We are here to stay, Donald Trump all the way. Seriously though, I feel like any person who tries to compare Trump and Hillary side by side has no idea about this election whatsoever, or at least the Donald Trump movement. Either way, using classical rationalism won't lead you to a very meaningful picture of this election. It is disturbing. People now feel, apparently including presidents of student societies, that it is okay to smear all Trump supporters as bigoted racists. Even the wearing of a hat makes someone feel deeply unsafe...its insane. I could never have imagined this happening five years ago. The irony being of course, that their "safe spaces" are completely hypocritical in that they create spaces where you don't feel safe to offer countering views, for fear of being labelled a racist, bigot, xenophobe, or any other word in the extreme left lexicon. Building a wall with Mexico, and suggesting a temporary ban on Muslims because of the dangers posed by terrorism, has been misconstrued as a vision for a pure white America in which minorities are assaulted, jailed, or otherwise removed from the country. And anyone who dares question this narrative is threatened with assault, or actually assaulted. Normally I don't support Trump because of his views on global warming, but these kinds of attacks make me extremely sympathetic for Trump voters. This kind of stuff would actually sway my vote (if I were American), because I would be increasingly worried that society around me is becoming more and more extremized and accepting of propaganda, and that we actually need someone to counter it and stand up to it. Good point. If a casual observer can look at Trump voters sympathetically and see what's called centrism or rationality as extremism, the field is ripe for change. In this election or future elections. The silent white majority can only be openly crapped on for so long before they start to take notice and act like their own special interest group as the minorities do. This is the inevitable, dangerous result of the past couple generations of liberal politics. I'm pretty sure the silent white majority isn't actually a majority, not even among white people. But the terminology is interesting, because rather than accepting that they're a loud minority, which those people can't fathom because they still believe they're the only ones entitled to a democratic opinion, they go with the silent majority narrative This is pretty funny because every minority movement, no matter how radical, has no problem to accept the basic premise that they are indeed small in numbers. Only the white man cannot understand that he might actually be outnumbered. If his voice is not heard it must be the rigged system, or the strong opposition. It can't possibly be the case that nobody cares Well Trump is 58-32~ with White people, so I don't know what you call an overwhelming majority, but that's fairly sizeable. So clearly there's a big portion of white people who don't like how it's all been handled, but it's tough to do much now as you can't get 100% of white people on your side no matter what.... And since the non-white population is rising, it'll only get tougher to win an election with based on a lot of American values. American values doesn't mean only White people, but it does mean fairly heavily assimilation. Naturally if people immigrate to the USA for elsewhere, they won't be exactly on board to having policies that require them to assimilate. Trump doesn't dislike other races because of their color, he dislikes a lot of people because they are a burden to the country, and the US let it happen... Up to a point where White people, or simply put, the people that used to live here with their way of life aren't able to make the decisions anymore. So yes, hispanics that will work, learn English, all for that... Asian people are excellent, they assimilate super well, especially the first generation ones. Trump wants to unify the belief and value system of the United States, as currently unity in the US is extremely difficult, since a redneck in Texas, and an arts student at a university are polar opposites in their thinking. Of course some people are going to lose out, but it's not done on the merit of their skin color, sexual orientation, or sex... It's by the virtues that Donald Trump deems valuable, which I see as loyalty, hard work, accountability, and all the other terms you put on your resume.
People frequently say that "American values" isn't White only, but the thing that people don't understand is that these "American values" that conservatives cherish so much were created out of exclusivity; they are largely the norms and customs of white, heterosexual Christian Americans and cultural and legal institutions that were built on a framework of intense discrimination against those that weren't from that group.
In essence, trying to attach the conservative movement to "holding onto American values" is just what you described; assimilation. The problem is that the assimilation that conservatives want is a disturbing brand of whitewashing that destroys the heritage of minority groups and stamps out the influence of any non-Christian religion.
I also find it ironic that you lament the difficulty of being a Trump supporter when 1) conservatives frequently ridicule the left for the concept of "safe spaces" and 2) conservatives don't make it any easier for progressives in places like the Deep South where you're pretty much a political pariah if you aren't a conservative.
Finally, it's absurd that you can argue that it's OK to hold Trump to a lower standard than Clinton when they're running for the same office. Sure, this is the optical effect that the public sees (i.e. the public has basically acclimated to Trump saying crazy and insulting things, so they aren't as shocking as when Hillary screws up), but from an ethical standpoint that isn't any kind of excuse.
Ah okay, I would have thought that calling out Mexicans as rapists, or bombing Muslims are foreign relations blunders, hence I interpreted it in that way.
Anyway, as for pure policy decisions, he's said some crap, but I like his philosophy and values, so I'm sure if he has proper information from his peers, his decisions won't be too ludicrous.
This is the same type of mental gymnastics that xDaunt tries to do.
There is absolutely zero evidence that Trump will somehow make better decisions when he is president. He already has everything he could possibly need at his disposal in terms of advisers, information, etc. and yet he still makes ridiculous claims, blatantly lies about incredible things to the public, and looks astoundingly ignorant on a number of policy issues.
It's the same thing with how his campaign is going; there's no evidence to conclude that everything he's done has been some "master plan"; all evidence points to him being a narcissistic hothead who can't keep his mouth shut and can't stand any harm to his ego, but people try to jump through hoops to explain how it's somehow some brilliant plan when it isn't.
|
I'm glad the Trump supporters ITT have at least admitted that he's a total dice roll. Danglars has a theory about him steering his populist sail in the wind, so we'll see how that turns out. xDaunt wants something that looks like an actionable conservative change even though he's also calling Trump's wall plan "good" and "detailed". FiWiFaKi is not afraid of any damaging effects Trump might have, because they would pale in comparison to PC culture.
I just see a distance from reality and the significance of the white house in Trump supporters. He's an American TV candidate, a celebrity, whose credentials are that he's good on TV. And you have no idea what the result of your vote will be.
|
70 year olds don't just change who they are. He's not just going to flip the switch to calm, contemplative, even handed president mode. I don't understand why anyone would actually believe he'd just suddenly flip personality 180 degrees as an elderly man.
|
On September 17 2016 12:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:
70 year olds don't just change who they are. He's not just going to flip the switch to calm, contemplative, even handed president mode. I don't understand why anyone would actually believe he'd just suddenly flip personality 180 degrees as an elderly man.
Because 90%+ of his time in his speeches he's calm and collected, so he doesn't need to do a 180 degrees flip
On September 17 2016 11:50 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 11:46 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 17 2016 11:42 zlefin wrote:
fiwi -> perhaps I was unclear;
I'm NOT looking at his rude statements. It's NOT the attack statements against individuals or groups that are most disqualifying to me. It is major foreign policy blunders (which is the area that the Presidency has the most control over, and where they can do quite a lot regardless of other branches opinions). and to a minor extent other things which show a complete lack of understanding of the issues and solutions. Ah okay, I would have thought that calling out Mexicans as rapists, or bombing Muslims are foreign relations blunders, hence I interpreted it in that way. Anyway, as for pure policy decisions, he's said some crap, but I like his philosophy and values, so I'm sure if he has proper information from his peers, his decisions won't be too ludicrous. the bombing terrorists' families one was disqualifying, for blatantly obvious reasons, as it also shows his values as being unfit. the mexican rapist one is an asshole thing to say; but it's not really a policy prescription, it has little direct effect, hence why it's simply lumped into the group of mean things he's said (though you're right it does add to the list of foreign policy blunders) Also, he's had more than enough time to have experts give him proper information, and he has yet to make sufficient use of it. The other most disqualifying thing he said was the one about not upholding the NATO alliance if he feels the other haven't done enough. There are many ways by which he could've expressed reasonable views and concerns without saying what he did.
You know, I find that with time he gets more sensible with his positions... He's just quick to speak before he has a good enough formulation with of something - hence why he backtracks a lot of the stupid stuff he says and whatnot. He's just a lot more unfiltered and speaks before discussing with his experts for a long time. In my eyes it makes him easier to read, I'm sure Hillary would say a lot of ridiculous stuff too if she wasn't calculated. It's just the collateral damage from his style, I don't think that makes him worse or Hillary though.
Again, I'm not fighting that he's a saint, but a lot better than people make him out to be.
Anyway, I have things to do now, so that's it for me for the night. Enjoyed the discussion.
|
On September 17 2016 12:09 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 12:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:
70 year olds don't just change who they are. He's not just going to flip the switch to calm, contemplative, even handed president mode. I don't understand why anyone would actually believe he'd just suddenly flip personality 180 degrees as an elderly man. Because 90%+ of his time in his speeches he's calm and collected, so he doesn't need to do a 180 degrees flip
So someone who is still off-the-walls and a complete hothead far more than any other major candidate in recent history is somehow supposed to keep it together and guide us through some incredibly tough foreign policy challenges in the next four years?
|
On September 17 2016 12:09 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 12:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:
70 year olds don't just change who they are. He's not just going to flip the switch to calm, contemplative, even handed president mode. I don't understand why anyone would actually believe he'd just suddenly flip personality 180 degrees as an elderly man. Because 90%+ of his time in his speeches he's calm and collected, so he doesn't need to do a 180 degrees flip
A successful con artist can fake anything. Trump is a successful con artist.
|
On September 17 2016 12:09 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 12:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:
70 year olds don't just change who they are. He's not just going to flip the switch to calm, contemplative, even handed president mode. I don't understand why anyone would actually believe he'd just suddenly flip personality 180 degrees as an elderly man. Because 90%+ of his time in his speeches he's calm and collected, so he doesn't need to do a 180 degrees flip
You must be watching different appearances than I am. He's so easily baited and reactionary. The man is anything but calm and collected.
Getting baited is an extreme character flaw and a sign of weakness. Everyone on the planet knows how to bend the man to their will by poking at him (Or in the case of Putin by giving him the bedroom eyes). He reacts out of pure emotion, the absolute last thing you want from anyone with power.
|
On September 17 2016 12:09 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 12:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:
70 year olds don't just change who they are. He's not just going to flip the switch to calm, contemplative, even handed president mode. I don't understand why anyone would actually believe he'd just suddenly flip personality 180 degrees as an elderly man. Because 90%+ of his time in his speeches he's calm and collected, so he doesn't need to do a 180 degrees flip Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 11:50 zlefin wrote:On September 17 2016 11:46 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 17 2016 11:42 zlefin wrote:
fiwi -> perhaps I was unclear;
I'm NOT looking at his rude statements. It's NOT the attack statements against individuals or groups that are most disqualifying to me. It is major foreign policy blunders (which is the area that the Presidency has the most control over, and where they can do quite a lot regardless of other branches opinions). and to a minor extent other things which show a complete lack of understanding of the issues and solutions. Ah okay, I would have thought that calling out Mexicans as rapists, or bombing Muslims are foreign relations blunders, hence I interpreted it in that way. Anyway, as for pure policy decisions, he's said some crap, but I like his philosophy and values, so I'm sure if he has proper information from his peers, his decisions won't be too ludicrous. the bombing terrorists' families one was disqualifying, for blatantly obvious reasons, as it also shows his values as being unfit. the mexican rapist one is an asshole thing to say; but it's not really a policy prescription, it has little direct effect, hence why it's simply lumped into the group of mean things he's said (though you're right it does add to the list of foreign policy blunders) Also, he's had more than enough time to have experts give him proper information, and he has yet to make sufficient use of it. The other most disqualifying thing he said was the one about not upholding the NATO alliance if he feels the other haven't done enough. There are many ways by which he could've expressed reasonable views and concerns without saying what he did. You know, I find that with time he gets more sensible with his positions... He's just quick to speak before he has a good enough formulation with of something - hence why he backtracks a lot of the stupid stuff he says and whatnot. He's just a lot more unfiltered and speaks before discussing with his experts for a long time. In my eyes it makes him easier to read, I'm sure Hillary would say a lot of ridiculous stuff too if she wasn't calculated. It's just the collateral damage from his style, I don't think that makes him worse or Hillary though. Again, I'm not fighting that he's a saint, but a lot better than people make him out to be. Anyway, I have things to do now, so that's it for me for the night. Enjoyed the discussion.
I'd say the question isn't whether he's better than people make him out to be; but whether he's better than I make him out to be, as I'm the person you're discussing with.
the thing is, alot of the time he DOESNT backtrack these things. At least not fully, but in a very hedging manner.
Also, in international diplomacy, you can do plenty of damage by not filtering what you say.
It may be easy to read, but that doens't make it good; a wise person would know the limits of their own knowledge and be careful about what they claim.
The stylistic differences don't account for the fact that the two primary cases I cited simply go far beyond what should be done.
Hillary, for all her faults, wouldn't be saying stuff like that, she at least has enough basic sense and knowledge for that.
g'night.
|
On September 17 2016 12:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 12:09 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 17 2016 12:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:
70 year olds don't just change who they are. He's not just going to flip the switch to calm, contemplative, even handed president mode. I don't understand why anyone would actually believe he'd just suddenly flip personality 180 degrees as an elderly man. Because 90%+ of his time in his speeches he's calm and collected, so he doesn't need to do a 180 degrees flip So someone who is still off-the-walls and a complete hothead far more than any other major candidate in recent history is somehow supposed to keep it together and guide us through some incredibly tough foreign policy challenges in the next four years?
Yes.
A president is usually not dealing with situations on the spot like in the election cycle. And I've seen plenty of interviews with him, and especially recently, find me more than a thing or two that he's said that is out of line, or anywhere near what he's said 3-4 months ago?
|
On September 17 2016 12:20 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 12:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 17 2016 12:09 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 17 2016 12:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:
70 year olds don't just change who they are. He's not just going to flip the switch to calm, contemplative, even handed president mode. I don't understand why anyone would actually believe he'd just suddenly flip personality 180 degrees as an elderly man. Because 90%+ of his time in his speeches he's calm and collected, so he doesn't need to do a 180 degrees flip So someone who is still off-the-walls and a complete hothead far more than any other major candidate in recent history is somehow supposed to keep it together and guide us through some incredibly tough foreign policy challenges in the next four years? Yes. A president is usually not dealing with situations on the spot like in the election cycle. And I've seen plenty of interviews with him, and especially recently, find me more than a thing or two that he's said that is out of line, or anywhere near what he's said 3-4 months ago?
That is called being a con artist. Tell you want you wan to hear.
|
On September 17 2016 12:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 12:20 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 17 2016 12:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 17 2016 12:09 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 17 2016 12:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:
70 year olds don't just change who they are. He's not just going to flip the switch to calm, contemplative, even handed president mode. I don't understand why anyone would actually believe he'd just suddenly flip personality 180 degrees as an elderly man. Because 90%+ of his time in his speeches he's calm and collected, so he doesn't need to do a 180 degrees flip So someone who is still off-the-walls and a complete hothead far more than any other major candidate in recent history is somehow supposed to keep it together and guide us through some incredibly tough foreign policy challenges in the next four years? Yes. A president is usually not dealing with situations on the spot like in the election cycle. And I've seen plenty of interviews with him, and especially recently, find me more than a thing or two that he's said that is out of line, or anywhere near what he's said 3-4 months ago? That is called being a con artist. Tell you want you wan to hear.
Sorry, I know I said I'm leaving.
And no it doesn't, I'd imagine most people would appear very extreme or whatever if they talked to the public like they talk to their friends. Trump talks like that because in my eyes he saw benefit long term...
If that's being a con-artist by your definition, then fine, but if that's the case, Hillary is equal to that.
|
On September 17 2016 12:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 12:20 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 17 2016 12:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 17 2016 12:09 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 17 2016 12:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:
70 year olds don't just change who they are. He's not just going to flip the switch to calm, contemplative, even handed president mode. I don't understand why anyone would actually believe he'd just suddenly flip personality 180 degrees as an elderly man. Because 90%+ of his time in his speeches he's calm and collected, so he doesn't need to do a 180 degrees flip So someone who is still off-the-walls and a complete hothead far more than any other major candidate in recent history is somehow supposed to keep it together and guide us through some incredibly tough foreign policy challenges in the next four years? Yes. A president is usually not dealing with situations on the spot like in the election cycle. And I've seen plenty of interviews with him, and especially recently, find me more than a thing or two that he's said that is out of line, or anywhere near what he's said 3-4 months ago? That is called being a con artist. Tell you want you wan to hear.
That'd be called politics.
|
On September 17 2016 11:02 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 10:58 Plansix wrote:On September 17 2016 10:46 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 17 2016 10:31 Plansix wrote:
They are really not that big of a deal, at all. I live in one of the most liberal sections of the country, filled with colleges. They are not a problem. They are only a problem if someone needs to be while a full asshole all the time and gets really offended when people tell them to stop. Yep, I don't think you understand the issue at all Plansix. The whole point is that this population, who thinks much like you (and hence why I disagree with most things you say... A similar mentality that you are portraying is the one I want to stay away from the white house, law, and congress), will become a sizeable population who will decide to outcome of elections and decide what laws will become commonplace. This is how it will affect right-wing people, not by some stupid girl telling another guy to take his Donald Trump hat off. The issue is that communicating that is very difficult when I don't have the full brain power or attention of someone, because they'll dismiss it before they give it any thought. No, I get it. I was a teenager in the 90s when the the first round of anti PC movement. It's not a problem, unless you're an asshole. And once again, don't agree = they're assholes, nice. The reaffirms my position that the social left are not inclusive to many worldviews, and the difficulty of being a Trump supporter in society with strangers is a testament to that (while with your friends is it's a lot easier).
The ones who are up in arms about PC are those who react poorly when someone calls them out on something. Everyone does this but the "assholes" are those who get defensive and aggressive. Everyone fucks up and says/does something dumb, but when you just dismiss the fact that you did anything wrong and make a big deal about it then yes you are being a dick.
Funny you should bring up how leftists aren't inclusive when I have literally met right wing people who like to loudly proclaim in public they will fight any democrat they meet.
There are plenty of reasonable people on both sides. However, you seem intent on acting like the Left is the only position with problem people who are dicks about their ideologies then using that to wholesale dismiss it while ignoring the same shit that goes on "from your side". Being non-inclusive and an asshole isn't a symptom of a political decision, its something all groups of humans share and some of those people are leftists and some come from the right.
|
Actually, Patti Solis Doyle seems to be mistaken with regards to that episode and the Iowa volunteer. If we're talking about the same person, the volunteer did not, in fact, circulate the birther conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was born outside the U.S. The e-mail she forwarded was about Obama being a Muslim, not about him being born outside of the U.S. -- in fact, the e-mail itself mentions Obama was born in Hawaii. I already linked the politifact article on the matter earlier today: click here. You can read the full e-mail here.
It took me exactly 25 seconds to verify this information after clicking on your breitbart article.
"boom"
|
On September 17 2016 12:50 kwizach wrote:Actually, Patti Solis Doyle seems to be mistaken with regards to that episode and the Iowa volunteer. If we're talking about the same person, the volunteer did not, in fact, circulate the birther conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was born outside the U.S. The e-mail she forwarded was about Obama being a Muslim, not about him being born outside of the U.S. -- in fact, the e-mail itself mentions Obama was born in Hawaii. I already linked the politifact article on the matter earlier today: click here. You can read the full e-mail here. It took me exactly 25 seconds to verify this information after clicking on your breitbart article. "boom"
its Blumenthal, you "fact checker" its not hard to piece together an ailing campaign and clintons reputation
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article102354777.html
|
On September 17 2016 13:10 Hexe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 12:50 kwizach wrote:Actually, Patti Solis Doyle seems to be mistaken with regards to that episode and the Iowa volunteer. If we're talking about the same person, the volunteer did not, in fact, circulate the birther conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was born outside the U.S. The e-mail she forwarded was about Obama being a Muslim, not about him being born outside of the U.S. -- in fact, the e-mail itself mentions Obama was born in Hawaii. I already linked the politifact article on the matter earlier today: click here. You can read the full e-mail here. It took me exactly 25 seconds to verify this information after clicking on your breitbart article. "boom" its Blumenthal, you "fact checker" its not hard to piece together an ailing campaign and clintons reputation http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article102354777.html
Can you rephrase this? I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
|
On September 17 2016 13:10 Hexe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 12:50 kwizach wrote:Actually, Patti Solis Doyle seems to be mistaken with regards to that episode and the Iowa volunteer. If we're talking about the same person, the volunteer did not, in fact, circulate the birther conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was born outside the U.S. The e-mail she forwarded was about Obama being a Muslim, not about him being born outside of the U.S. -- in fact, the e-mail itself mentions Obama was born in Hawaii. I already linked the politifact article on the matter earlier today: click here. You can read the full e-mail here. It took me exactly 25 seconds to verify this information after clicking on your breitbart article. "boom" its Blumenthal, you "fact checker" its not hard to piece together an ailing campaign and clintons reputation http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article102354777.html
No, you're confusing two different people. The Iowa volunteer that Patti Solis Doyle referred to in your original Breitbart article was not Sidney Blumenthal (obviously). Are you even reading the articles you're sharing?
|
On September 17 2016 13:17 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 13:10 Hexe wrote:On September 17 2016 12:50 kwizach wrote:Actually, Patti Solis Doyle seems to be mistaken with regards to that episode and the Iowa volunteer. If we're talking about the same person, the volunteer did not, in fact, circulate the birther conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was born outside the U.S. The e-mail she forwarded was about Obama being a Muslim, not about him being born outside of the U.S. -- in fact, the e-mail itself mentions Obama was born in Hawaii. I already linked the politifact article on the matter earlier today: click here. You can read the full e-mail here. It took me exactly 25 seconds to verify this information after clicking on your breitbart article. "boom" its Blumenthal, you "fact checker" its not hard to piece together an ailing campaign and clintons reputation http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article102354777.html No, you're confusing two different people. The Iowa volunteer that Patti Solis Doyle referred to in your original Breitbart article was not Sidney Blumenthal (obviously). Are you even reading the articles you're sharing?
As we discovered a few pages ago, the answer to that is no. We already went over the entire thing, and xDaunt even made a masturbatory double post to congratulate himself on it.
|
On September 17 2016 13:17 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 13:10 Hexe wrote:On September 17 2016 12:50 kwizach wrote:Actually, Patti Solis Doyle seems to be mistaken with regards to that episode and the Iowa volunteer. If we're talking about the same person, the volunteer did not, in fact, circulate the birther conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was born outside the U.S. The e-mail she forwarded was about Obama being a Muslim, not about him being born outside of the U.S. -- in fact, the e-mail itself mentions Obama was born in Hawaii. I already linked the politifact article on the matter earlier today: click here. You can read the full e-mail here. It took me exactly 25 seconds to verify this information after clicking on your breitbart article. "boom" its Blumenthal, you "fact checker" its not hard to piece together an ailing campaign and clintons reputation http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article102354777.html No, you're confusing two different people. The Iowa volunteer that Patti Solis Doyle referred to in your original Breitbart article was not Sidney Blumenthal (obviously). Are you even reading the articles you're sharing?
woah are you serious? no i only read the first few paragraphs sorry
|
On September 17 2016 13:26 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 13:17 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2016 13:10 Hexe wrote:On September 17 2016 12:50 kwizach wrote:Actually, Patti Solis Doyle seems to be mistaken with regards to that episode and the Iowa volunteer. If we're talking about the same person, the volunteer did not, in fact, circulate the birther conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was born outside the U.S. The e-mail she forwarded was about Obama being a Muslim, not about him being born outside of the U.S. -- in fact, the e-mail itself mentions Obama was born in Hawaii. I already linked the politifact article on the matter earlier today: click here. You can read the full e-mail here. It took me exactly 25 seconds to verify this information after clicking on your breitbart article. "boom" its Blumenthal, you "fact checker" its not hard to piece together an ailing campaign and clintons reputation http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article102354777.html No, you're confusing two different people. The Iowa volunteer that Patti Solis Doyle referred to in your original Breitbart article was not Sidney Blumenthal (obviously). Are you even reading the articles you're sharing? As we discovered a few pages ago, the answer to that is no. We already went over the entire thing, and xDaunt even made a masturbatory double post to congratulate himself on it.
I had a few posts where I was quite pleased with myself today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
